Jul 24, 2010
THURSDAY'S report ("100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour") confirms that there was nothing freakish or extraordinary about the recent storms. What was extraordinary were the serious floods that occurred within a span of one month as a result of the storms.
It is clear our current drainage system is failing to cope with the rapid urbanisation of recent years, which took away much water-permeable grounds.
[So, you'd prefer to walk on dirt tracks? Your choice: flood or mud.]
So steps are now being taken to raise roads and improve drains, and works will be expedited where possible. But why are most of the major tenders being called only in October or November, and some even next year?
Singapore prides itself as being able to achieve in record time completion of high-profile projects, such as the Formula One circuit and the two integrated resorts. Why can't we do the same and have the entire drainage system upgraded in record time?
[Because the F1 is sponsored by private capital, and the govt taxes hotels to recover costs. IRs were built with private capital. So who's going to pay for accelerated construction of drains? In any case, to improve drainage, works will probably mean diverting or even reducing drainage capacity temporarily in order to upgrade it. That means if it rains heavily, it would cause more floods. Must wait for drier season.]
Given the widespread disruption to lives and severe losses already suffered in the recent floods, and the high chance that more is to come (with possible loss of lives), wouldn't it be justified that we accord the greatest urgency to tackle the problem?
[PUB has already stated that they would bring forward their drainage improvement plans. Threatening the possibility of loss of lives is an appeal to emotions. And hyperbole. It would be irony if there is a drought after the completion of the drainage improvement works.]
Francis Kwek
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
COLONIAL HISTORY
Jul 26, 2010
Apathy? Far from it
I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.
After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?
To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.
Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.
Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.
Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.
Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.
More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.
Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.
Ashish Ravinran
[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.
So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.
As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]
Apathy? Far from it
I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.
After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?
To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.
Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.
Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.
Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.
Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.
More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.
Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.
Ashish Ravinran
[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.
So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.
As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
LATEST FLOODS - It's time to start a proper investigation
Jul 20, 2010
AS A concerned citizen watching the physical transformation of Singapore over the last 50 years, I have often wondered whether there are any downside risks that come with such development.
Our land mass has grown by an amazing 25 per cent in almost half a century to 775.5 sq km. In fact, the entire shape of Singapore has changed along with our ethnography, transportation and management of water resources, down to the way we work and play.
[I always get wary when writers used big words that don't mean what they think it means. "Ethnography" does not mean ethnic composition.]
According to a study, Singapore's coastline has been strikingly transformed not solely by territorial expansion through land filling or reclamation, but also by the closure of the estuaries of the main rivers draining the interior of the island.
To what extent has such a closure and relentless construction contributed to the floods in recent years?
To what extent, too, has the loss of 40 per cent of our natural forests, from 37.8 sq km to 22.6 sq km between 1960 and 2006, affected the island's ability to absorb torrential downpours?
It would be unfair to pick on the PUB or hold drainage as the culprit for the flooding. Neither should we cite Typhoon Conson as being a possible cause for our floods. It is simply too convenient.
[Ah! So you want an Inconvenient Truth? A conspiracy theory perhaps? So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might well be a talented chicken who can swim and speak a second language? Or maybe... IT'S A DUCK!]
The Government should start a Commission of Inquiry to examine why the recent floods have been concentrated mainly in the central and southern parts of the island, whereas the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts have been largely spared.
[Let's see, could it be because the storm came from the Southeast and by the time it passed the central region, it had dumped most of the rain? Or that really, if the rain fell in the forest and there was no one around to see it, did it flood?]
Has this to do with the closing of the river estuaries and the massive construction and urbanisation in the city and the surrounding suburbs?
Until we arrive at a more multi-dimensional root cause for the problem, we will, at best, get only a piecemeal solution.
[Or maybe it's the fact that 100 mm of rain fell within 2 hours which is 60% of the entire month's average rainfall (June), and 180 mm of rain fell in 2 hours which was MORE than the ENTIRE month's average rainfall (July). The wettest month in Singapore is Dec with an average of 300 mm in total for the whole month. So 180mm in 2 hours is FREAKING unusual for ANY month. This is a "convenient" excuse? As a comparison, Typhoon Ketsana in 2009 dumped over 400 mm of rain on the worst hit region of the Philippines over 6 t0 12 hours. In other regions, the same amount of rain, 180 mm, fell over 6 to 12 hours.
But yes, there is more to it than, "it rained a lot" or "it was as wet as a typhoon". The question we should be asking is, whether the past can be used to predict the future. Whether past averages are a valid baseline for measurement. Or whether the 3 floods within the period of 1 month is going to be a freak occurrence. It is not impossible that 2 freak incidents (Sumatran squall and typhoons) occurs one after another. Just as it is not impossible to roll 6 on a dice 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times in a row. The point is, it could well be coincidence, aided by a confluence of factors. La Nina could be a cause, and if it is, then we might expect this to repeat every three years. Or if this is due to a long term or permanent trend in Singapore weather, then definitely we should upgrade our drainage to meet the new storm patterns. But, if this is only a freak confluence of "the perfect storm" conditions, then upgrading the drainage would be unnecessary.]
As a world-class city, we cannot afford to sink like Venice or swim like New Orleans.
Patrick Low
AS A concerned citizen watching the physical transformation of Singapore over the last 50 years, I have often wondered whether there are any downside risks that come with such development.
Our land mass has grown by an amazing 25 per cent in almost half a century to 775.5 sq km. In fact, the entire shape of Singapore has changed along with our ethnography, transportation and management of water resources, down to the way we work and play.
[I always get wary when writers used big words that don't mean what they think it means. "Ethnography" does not mean ethnic composition.]
According to a study, Singapore's coastline has been strikingly transformed not solely by territorial expansion through land filling or reclamation, but also by the closure of the estuaries of the main rivers draining the interior of the island.
To what extent has such a closure and relentless construction contributed to the floods in recent years?
To what extent, too, has the loss of 40 per cent of our natural forests, from 37.8 sq km to 22.6 sq km between 1960 and 2006, affected the island's ability to absorb torrential downpours?
It would be unfair to pick on the PUB or hold drainage as the culprit for the flooding. Neither should we cite Typhoon Conson as being a possible cause for our floods. It is simply too convenient.
[Ah! So you want an Inconvenient Truth? A conspiracy theory perhaps? So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might well be a talented chicken who can swim and speak a second language? Or maybe... IT'S A DUCK!]
The Government should start a Commission of Inquiry to examine why the recent floods have been concentrated mainly in the central and southern parts of the island, whereas the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts have been largely spared.
[Let's see, could it be because the storm came from the Southeast and by the time it passed the central region, it had dumped most of the rain? Or that really, if the rain fell in the forest and there was no one around to see it, did it flood?]
Has this to do with the closing of the river estuaries and the massive construction and urbanisation in the city and the surrounding suburbs?
Until we arrive at a more multi-dimensional root cause for the problem, we will, at best, get only a piecemeal solution.
[Or maybe it's the fact that 100 mm of rain fell within 2 hours which is 60% of the entire month's average rainfall (June), and 180 mm of rain fell in 2 hours which was MORE than the ENTIRE month's average rainfall (July). The wettest month in Singapore is Dec with an average of 300 mm in total for the whole month. So 180mm in 2 hours is FREAKING unusual for ANY month. This is a "convenient" excuse? As a comparison, Typhoon Ketsana in 2009 dumped over 400 mm of rain on the worst hit region of the Philippines over 6 t0 12 hours. In other regions, the same amount of rain, 180 mm, fell over 6 to 12 hours.
But yes, there is more to it than, "it rained a lot" or "it was as wet as a typhoon". The question we should be asking is, whether the past can be used to predict the future. Whether past averages are a valid baseline for measurement. Or whether the 3 floods within the period of 1 month is going to be a freak occurrence. It is not impossible that 2 freak incidents (Sumatran squall and typhoons) occurs one after another. Just as it is not impossible to roll 6 on a dice 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times in a row. The point is, it could well be coincidence, aided by a confluence of factors. La Nina could be a cause, and if it is, then we might expect this to repeat every three years. Or if this is due to a long term or permanent trend in Singapore weather, then definitely we should upgrade our drainage to meet the new storm patterns. But, if this is only a freak confluence of "the perfect storm" conditions, then upgrading the drainage would be unnecessary.]
As a world-class city, we cannot afford to sink like Venice or swim like New Orleans.
Patrick Low
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Add more carriages to trains
Jul 11, 2010
I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Peak-hour crush'.
While it is true that the current infrastructure limits train capacity, as SMRT has pointed out, the issue has to be resolved because Singapore's population will continue to grow, and trains still have to carry more passengers.
Hence, it is myopic to maintain the status quo in our transport situation.
Here is a suggestion on how to improve the situation: Extend our six-carriage trains by adding two more carriages each - that is, one extra carriage at each end.
The load capacity of each train would effectively be increased by a third.
But how would these eight-carriage trains fit into current station platforms, which are only six carriages long?
To put it simply, they do not have to. The first and second carriages could share a common carriage door, while the seventh and eighth carriages could share another.
Though passengers get onto the trains at every station, most get off only at stations within the Central Business District (CBD).
The additional carriages would cater for passengers who are expected to alight at these stations, where the trains pretty much 'empty out'.
Yin Shanyang
[I should be more optimistic and supportive of good ideas. And this theoretically is a good idea. However in practice... I'm not optimistic. At least with buses, the drivers can try to cajole passengers to move to the rear to make room for incoming passengers, and practice a tacit blackmail by not moving the bus until passengers heed his pleas. On a train, during rush hour, with 2 or 3 minutes intervals between trains, drivers do not have the luxury... for trains with drivers. No one to shout, "Ao buay bo quee!" ("There're no ghosts at the back of the bus!") to use humour to try to get passengers to comply.
With the extra carriages which are rather long, and with only one exit now, only a few rational and non-kiasu Singaporeans will move to these carriages and most passengers will crowd at the doors. As it is, the carriages at the extreme ends are usually less crowded because most people find the cars at the extreme ends rather inconvenient (too far), let alone carriages beyond the platforms.
Better to just run more trains on a tighter schedule - like every 90 seconds during peak hours.]
I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Peak-hour crush'.
While it is true that the current infrastructure limits train capacity, as SMRT has pointed out, the issue has to be resolved because Singapore's population will continue to grow, and trains still have to carry more passengers.
Hence, it is myopic to maintain the status quo in our transport situation.
Here is a suggestion on how to improve the situation: Extend our six-carriage trains by adding two more carriages each - that is, one extra carriage at each end.
The load capacity of each train would effectively be increased by a third.
But how would these eight-carriage trains fit into current station platforms, which are only six carriages long?
To put it simply, they do not have to. The first and second carriages could share a common carriage door, while the seventh and eighth carriages could share another.
Though passengers get onto the trains at every station, most get off only at stations within the Central Business District (CBD).
The additional carriages would cater for passengers who are expected to alight at these stations, where the trains pretty much 'empty out'.
Yin Shanyang
[I should be more optimistic and supportive of good ideas. And this theoretically is a good idea. However in practice... I'm not optimistic. At least with buses, the drivers can try to cajole passengers to move to the rear to make room for incoming passengers, and practice a tacit blackmail by not moving the bus until passengers heed his pleas. On a train, during rush hour, with 2 or 3 minutes intervals between trains, drivers do not have the luxury... for trains with drivers. No one to shout, "Ao buay bo quee!" ("There're no ghosts at the back of the bus!") to use humour to try to get passengers to comply.
With the extra carriages which are rather long, and with only one exit now, only a few rational and non-kiasu Singaporeans will move to these carriages and most passengers will crowd at the doors. As it is, the carriages at the extreme ends are usually less crowded because most people find the cars at the extreme ends rather inconvenient (too far), let alone carriages beyond the platforms.
Better to just run more trains on a tighter schedule - like every 90 seconds during peak hours.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)